US threatens to destroy power plants over Iranian Strait of Hormuz attacks

By Alma Cordero · Reporting from El Paso · July 23, 2026

The week of July 22, 2026, saw high-stakes diplomatic rhetoric collide with physical attacks on commercial shipping across the Persian Gulf.

The Illusion of Deterrence: Why American Threats Always Cost Human Lives

When Washington starts threatening to bomb power plants or bridges in Tehran—if Iran shoots at any ship in the Strait of Hormuz—it’s not about security; it’s about maintaining profitable choke points for global oil flow. This week, July 22, 2026, saw U.S. President Donald Trump issue these severe warnings from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, a threat that feels as distant and hollow as the rhetoric itself. The focus on maritime security is merely a curtain drawn over a deeply troubling pattern of military escalation and human cost. While oil prices surged dramatically—Brent crude futures surpassed $95 per barrel—reflecting market anxiety, we must not let this economic panic distract us from the sheer violence underpinning it. US Central Command (Centcom) reported launching strikes under Trump’s direction to degrade Iranian capabilities, marking what the BBC noted as the 12th consecutive night of such actions. This sustained pressure is a textbook example of imperial overreach, using threats against civilian infrastructure—a bridge or power plant—to justify military action far removed from any actual peace process.

The Geography of Violence: Who Really Controls the Waterways?

The supposed "threat" to international waterways only serves one master: global capital. The Strait of Hormuz remains a critically sensitive waterway, representing roughly 20% of global liquid hydrocarbon trade. Any perceived threat causes immediate market panic, which is precisely what Washington wants us to focus on. Meanwhile, the conflict's true scope extends far beyond that narrow strait. We see localized conflicts erupting through proxy groups; Houthi rebels, described as Iranian-backed, announced a "maritime embargo" against Saudi Arabia and targeted two tankers, the Encelia and the Layla, in the Red Sea. This is how regional tensions transmit into immediate threats far from the supposed flashpoint. The military actions are not about defense; they are about control. Furthermore, US forces launched strikes aimed at degrading Iranian capabilities, targeting various sites including hangars and drone storage facilities across Iran’s territory—a pattern of sustained pressure that ignores the human cost. Sources reported that US strikes over the past eleven days killed 53 people, including six women and three children, and wounded nearly 600 people.

The Real Cost: From Border Rhetoric to Global War Machine

The rhetoric deployed by the U.S., from President Trump's ultimatums to Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressing the geopolitical danger in restricting international waterways, is designed purely for escalation. It ignores the fundamental reality that this cycle of threats—a broad claim followed by a concrete illustration—is self-perpetuating. The failure of previous diplomatic efforts, like the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) intended to stabilize the area, created a vacuum filled not by peace, but by renewed aggression and military posturing. Even when Jordan’s military reported successfully intercepting four Iranian missiles over Aqaba, it only added another layer of complexity to a conflict map built on structural contradiction: the U.S.-Saudi relationship signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia while simultaneously maintaining an underlying US-Iran conflict focused on preventing Tehran from enriching uranium domestically. The true story here is not about who hits whom; it's about how easily global economies are tethered to military chokepoints, turning human lives into collateral damage in the service of oil prices.

This entire volatile picture reveals a U.S. foreign policy apparatus that views sovereign nations and civilian populations as mere strategic assets, willing to escalate violence and threaten infrastructure—from bridges to power plants—to safeguard corporate profit margins.